henryhill:ExperianScaresCthulhu: Satanic_Hamster: I refuse to donate to the Red Cross. Very badly run and dishonest organization.

Did you know that 90 percent of the blood donated after 9/11 in the US was incinerated? Even when they knew their blood banks were filled to capacity, they kept taking donations and running advertisements for blood drives. Their brilliant plan was that if they could get people in to donate blood for PATRIOTISM after 9/11 once, some of them would become regular blood donors.

I can see their reasoning. Very mercenary. I'd have put out the reason that they didn't feel qualified to tell people who spontaneously wanted to give that there was enough already, and left the mercenary 'repeat donor' part out of it. 90 percent, though??? Man, I'd love to see a citation for that. That's too big a number. 9/11 wasn't the only tragedy where blood was needed that year. Is it like PETA and the puppies where they don't have the space?

Directly relating to 9/11, very little blood was actually needed. Overwhelmingly, if you were there and didnt die, chances were, you were perfectly fine.

Right. They were preparing for injured victims that just weren't there.

There are certainly issues with the Red Cross as a larger organization, but they still do a lot of good. People don't realize that the five dollars they send can't go straight to a disaster victim, but if it did, they would whine that there is no accountability. Accountability and efficient allocation of resources takes time and is very difficult. It is worth looking at the info Charity Navigator has on them, 3/4 stars and 91% of money going to programs instead of fundraising and administration. Also, the money collect for this disaster pays for the next one, otherwise they couldn't do anything for a long time.

People like to give money to hippie fiver person NGOs because they do "more direct" work, but don't actually have the resources and skills to do anything productive the way the Red Cross does.

I volunteer for the Red Cross so while I won't claim to be an objective source, I've seen the good work they do. Just last week I helped put up a guy in a hotel after his house burned down. Before that when a low income apartment complex lost power, we showed up with a mobile food unit and gave out free hot meals. Maybe other chapters are different, but here in Seattle I've seen a lot of good work done.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Red Cross, like many charitable organizations, solicited funds and blood donations for Red Cross activities for the victims of the attacks. Dr. Bernadine Healy, the president of the American Red Cross, appeared on telethons urging individuals to give generously....

Many donors felt that they had donated specifically to the victims of the September 11 attacks and objected to Healy's official plan for the diversion of funds. Survivors complained of the bureaucratic process involved in requesting funds and the slow delivery of the checks to meet immediate needs. Congressional hearings were called and New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer investigated the Red Cross. In the end, the American Red Cross appointed former U.S. senator George Mitchell to handle distribution of the funds...

Dr. Healy was forced to resign for her role in the situation, and the Red Cross pledged that all funds would go to directly benefit the victims of the September 11 attacks...

Nemo's Brother:Satanic_Hamster: I refuse to donate to the Red Cross. Very badly run and dishonest organization.

Did you know that 90 percent of the blood donated after 9/11 in the US was incinerated? Even when they knew their blood banks were filled to capacity, they kept taking donations and running advertisements for blood drives. Their brilliant plan was that if they could get people in to donate blood for PATRIOTISM after 9/11 once, some of them would become regular blood donors.

Every hospital in the country is asking for blood. Couldn't they give the excess to them?

They are starting to sound like PETA for people.

They most likely did, blood is used on a local basis. There are some donors that are used on a national basis as needed for rare types, but a majority of blood is used locally. But, a lot of people who donated just for 9/11 may not have had acceptable blood that was usable. Risks for disease and such (malaria, HIV, etc).

As I said earlier, Satanic Hamster needs to site his source for the '90% of blood incinerated' comment. I was a regular blood donor back then (can't donate anymore, my blood can't be used by others any longer), and I'm sure many others were. The local need for blood is always massive just because of how quickly it goes bad. I think I remember someone telling me that it's only good for about four days. So getting a massive influx of regular donors is always needed.

Of course, the downside to donating blood is that it leaves your arms looking like you're a junkie. I started wearing my gallon blood donation pin around during the summer just because people thought I was a drug user, and I got tired of telling people that I was a regular blood donor. Actually almost got fired for it if I hadn't had my blood donor card in my wallet.

The Red Cross can't just show up. They are perpetually under the heels of national governments -- as this article states speficially re: Japan if you read past the first sentence... and before you go blaming the RC headquartered in Washington, DC, be reminded this is an international association and RC Japan has effectively Fark-all to do with RC America, which is itself as much a loosely flapping arm of government as Fannie and Freddie.

LavenderWolf:apachevoyeur: Fark... well if Red Cross is full of thieves and executives making $500k a year... how else can we help the Japanese? Buy more Playstations?

Hop on a flight to Japan and start cleaning up?

I've been through Narita maybe a dozen times and never stepped out of the airport (heading to-fro Singapore). Are there actually groups that you can join to help with cleanup? Do I need to wear my lead lined underoos?

Directly relating to 9/11, very little blood was actually needed. Overwhelmingly, if you were there and didnt die, chances were, you were perfectly fine.

Except for the inhaling part, but yeah. You can't give blood transfusions to bodies disintegrated by collapsing buildings. With the '20000 dead!' and 'worse than antietam!' hyperbole all day, nobody could know, though. We got farked in the ass that day; donating blood seemed like the proper thing to do, and the positive thing to do, instead of focusing on 'GLASS PARKING LOT!' and 'NUKE EM!' fantasies..... or committing hate crimes against muslims, and hindu. It was something to do. Giving your life's essence, not just your money. It was that important.

Damn, this is the 10th year anniversary. Where are we now? This is rather depressing.

Tachikoma:Nemo's Brother: Satanic_Hamster: I refuse to donate to the Red Cross. Very badly run and dishonest organization.

Did you know that 90 percent of the blood donated after 9/11 in the US was incinerated? Even when they knew their blood banks were filled to capacity, they kept taking donations and running advertisements for blood drives. Their brilliant plan was that if they could get people in to donate blood for PATRIOTISM after 9/11 once, some of them would become regular blood donors.

Every hospital in the country is asking for blood. Couldn't they give the excess to them?

They are starting to sound like PETA for people.

They most likely did, blood is used on a local basis. There are some donors that are used on a national basis as needed for rare types, but a majority of blood is used locally. But, a lot of people who donated just for 9/11 may not have had acceptable blood that was usable. Risks for disease and such (malaria, HIV, etc).

As I said earlier, Satanic Hamster needs to site his source for the '90% of blood incinerated' comment. I was a regular blood donor back then (can't donate anymore, my blood can't be used by others any longer), and I'm sure many others were. The local need for blood is always massive just because of how quickly it goes bad. I think I remember someone telling me that it's only good for about four days. So getting a massive influx of regular donors is always needed.

Of course, the downside to donating blood is that it leaves your arms looking like you're a junkie. I started wearing my gallon blood donation pin around during the summer just because people thought I was a drug user, and I got tired of telling people that I was a regular blood donor. Actually almost got fired for it if I hadn't had my blood donor card in my wallet.

It's moot anyways.

9/11 did not create a big demand for blood. There was a huge outpouring of blood donations. The numbers are irrelevant, there was just too much. It's not like there's someone there going "Well, shiat, this guy needs blood but I'd rather incinerate it!"

apachevoyeur:Fark... well if Red Cross is full of thieves and executives making $500k a year... how else can we help the Japanese? Buy more Playstations?

Sogo Japan (new window)Sogo Japan is a charitable endeavor committed to provide funds DIRECTLY to Japanese relief organizations battling the effects of the devastating earthquakes and tsunamis. The focus is to deliver the fastest delivery and greatest impact of our donations to the people of Japan.

Satanic_Hamster:I refuse to donate to the Red Cross. Very badly run and dishonest organization.

Did you know that 90 percent of the blood donated after 9/11 in the US was incinerated? Even when they knew their blood banks were filled to capacity, they kept taking donations and running advertisements for blood drives. Their brilliant plan was that if they could get people in to donate blood for PATRIOTISM after 9/11 once, some of them would become regular blood donors.

The Red Cross specifically advertised, frequently, that their blood supplies were doing quite well post 9/11 and that they had no immediate need for whole blood.

You are intentionally passing along false information for no other reason than shiats and giggles. You are a terrible human being.

apachevoyeur:LavenderWolf: apachevoyeur: Fark... well if Red Cross is full of thieves and executives making $500k a year... how else can we help the Japanese? Buy more Playstations?

Hop on a flight to Japan and start cleaning up?

I've been through Narita maybe a dozen times and never stepped out of the airport (heading to-fro Singapore). Are there actually groups that you can join to help with cleanup? Do I need to wear my lead lined underoos?

I would imagine finding a useful way to spend time in Japan right now would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Don't Tongue the Reaper!:Charity Navigator, as Korovyov mentioned above, helps you analyze the spending habits of charities. You can then choose which charity you think will make the best use of your donation.

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh:No surprise. I've seen the Red Cross in action after smaller scale disasters. While all the other charities that showed were handing out free food and supplies to the needy without heed to the cost, the Red Cross people were charging for sandwiches, ignoring those without cash in hand who asked for help and focused their energy on obtaining more donations from everyone else.

Sounds like bullshiat to me, all Red Cross help is free. I've helped provide free food with them myself.

By give aid I mean the arrived at a spot where the Salvation Army was feeding people flooded out of their homes, made sure their spokespeople were the ones interviewed with the Salvation Army crews actually doing the work in the background, and went to the victims asking for donations.

If true, I'll agree that is crap. ARC does work with Salvation Army cooperatively, at least in my experience I haven't seen anyone taking credit for other work. We are trained no refuse any money from "clients" (not supposed to call them victims) and tell them to get back on their feet and talk to the office at a later date if they feel the need to donate, we emphasize that all help is free. If the behavior you describe happens in other chapters, I agree that is inappropriate.

Shazam999:Yeah, they have something like a billion dollars from Haiti donations that's just sitting around.

In a place like Haiti it is very difficult to effectively spend money. You don't just throw it around, you need to make sure it is used productively. This is very difficult in the best circumstances and even more difficult in a place like Haiti where infrastructure and political systems are nonexistent or completely farked up. Red Cross typically tries to make it clear that setting aside money specifically for one disaster is stupid and ineffective. What if that money won't do any good? Do you just throw it around anyway? Or do you use it for the next disaster where it can help more people? The issues in Haiti are very long term and can't be solved by Red Cross alone.

This is how the Red Cross works... and always has. I don't see the problem.

They collect money now, some (at least) of which goes to the next disaster.

Imagine the practicality of not doing this... Japan is flattened... Red Cross takes a few months to collect and administer funds and buy / gather supplies, then they can ship them off to all the people who have died in the mean time...

9/11 did not create a big demand for blood. There was a huge outpouring of blood donations. The numbers are irrelevant, there was just too much. It's not like there's someone there going "Well, shiat, this guy needs blood but I'd rather incinerate it!"

Yes, that is true. But I very much doubt 90% of it was getting chucked into the fire. That number is absurd. Maybe 90% at a single clinic in a tiny town, but in most of the States? There's no way they were chucking nearly all of it away.

My grandfather always said fark the Red Cross til the day he died. He just got out of Korea, trying to make his way home after serving his country, the RC "lent" him $5 to get home, made him fill out paperwork with his home address to where they could go about getting their money repaid etc.

Salvation Army on the other hand, helped him out greatly, fed him, and gave him money to get back home. It's why I always donate everything to them.

1. Put snakes on plane:Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: No surprise. I've seen the Red Cross in action after smaller scale disasters. While all the other charities that showed were handing out free food and supplies to the needy without heed to the cost, the Red Cross people were charging for sandwiches, ignoring those without cash in hand who asked for help and focused their energy on obtaining more donations from everyone else.

They're good for blood drives, but nothing else.

Again, bullshiat. It's on you for proof, but I'll start you off.

Lots of bullshiat in here, fueled by the trolltastic headline.

Provided you had read my post, you would've noted that I was speaking of my own experiences, anecdotal as they are. It is what I have seen and watched occur, in person, right before me on several occasions at disparate locations. Some of who were spurned are people I've known many years and so know that something better didn't occur afterwards.

The RC is the only charity I've watched in action that put obtaining donations as their first priority, charged people needing help for the supplies they needed and turned others away who couldn't pay. All while the others gave freely to the needy and kept at it long after the reporters went away.

My personal experience, as I said, not an argument to convert the true believers or even the 'meh'. Am I to find proof of my experiences to convince myself or something?

Or were you demanding proof that they're good with blood? Well, I have none there beyond being a regular donor and thinking I'm doing some good.

9/11 did not create a big demand for blood. There was a huge outpouring of blood donations. The numbers are irrelevant, there was just too much. It's not like there's someone there going "Well, shiat, this guy needs blood but I'd rather incinerate it!"

Yes, that is true. But I very much doubt 90% of it was getting chucked into the fire. That number is absurd. Maybe 90% at a single clinic in a tiny town, but in most of the States? There's no way they were chucking nearly all of it away.

I'm just saying whatever number buddy pulled out of his ass is irrelevant. Mass outpouring of donations + no need for additional blood = some blood destroyed because it goes bad before use.

Pincy:ExperianScaresCthulhu: I'm not seeing anyone say the latter, dude. And only some charities are scams. The good ones just do good works and aren't all over the tv and billboards and stuff.

So charities can't advertise now? How are they supposed to get donors?

In your city, which charities are more likely to appear on the tv and on billboards? which will you most likely only find on a reference paper given out by a health care or government professional? I just mean that difference, not that charities don't advertise at all.

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh:1. Put snakes on plane: Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: No surprise. I've seen the Red Cross in action after smaller scale disasters. While all the other charities that showed were handing out free food and supplies to the needy without heed to the cost, the Red Cross people were charging for sandwiches, ignoring those without cash in hand who asked for help and focused their energy on obtaining more donations from everyone else.

They're good for blood drives, but nothing else.

Again, bullshiat. It's on you for proof, but I'll start you off.

Lots of bullshiat in here, fueled by the trolltastic headline.

Provided you had read my post, you would've noted that I was speaking of my own experiences, anecdotal as they are. It is what I have seen and watched occur, in person, right before me on several occasions at disparate locations. Some of who were spurned are people I've known many years and so know that something better didn't occur afterwards.

The RC is the only charity I've watched in action that put obtaining donations as their first priority, charged people needing help for the supplies they needed and turned others away who couldn't pay. All while the others gave freely to the needy and kept at it long after the reporters went away.

My personal experience, as I said, not an argument to convert the true believers or even the 'meh'. Am I to find proof of my experiences to convince myself or something?

Or were you demanding proof that they're good with blood? Well, I have none there beyond being a regular donor and thinking I'm doing some good.

9/11 did not create a big demand for blood. There was a huge outpouring of blood donations. The numbers are irrelevant, there was just too much. It's not like there's someone there going "Well, shiat, this guy needs blood but I'd rather incinerate it!"

Yes, that is true. But I very much doubt 90% of it was getting chucked into the fire. That number is absurd. Maybe 90% at a single clinic in a tiny town, but in most of the States? There's no way they were chucking nearly all of it away.

I'm just saying whatever number buddy pulled out of his ass is irrelevant. Mass outpouring of donations + no need for additional blood = some blood destroyed because it goes bad before use.

Blood is used locally first. 9/11 victims might not have needed blood, but people in general did every day it was going on, and still do. Yes, some probably did get chucked from full banks, but a lot of blood did go to good use.

serpent_sky:Bathia_Mapes: Didn't the U.S. Red Cross do basically the same thing post-Katrina?

Haiti, as well, I believe.

But they have a great campaign with the text message money. You almost feel guilty for not even doing something that simple, and they know it.

They also did it post 9-11, got slammed, had a bunch of people who had to resign, and another bunch of people who almost went to prison. They then pinkie swore that they would behave.

Most charities either are, or will eventually become, a piggy bank so that trust fund babies can get their inheritance with the fewest amount of money going to taxes. Why do you think every billionaire eventually donates all of his money to some big special fund? They only have to do enough window dressing works to keep people from asking questions.

Since we're on the topic of charities, what do you farkers think about the Avon Foundation? They do walks for breast cancer. I was going to donate but I'm a little hesitant since they are tied to Avon corporation.

9/11 did not create a big demand for blood. There was a huge outpouring of blood donations. The numbers are irrelevant, there was just too much. It's not like there's someone there going "Well, shiat, this guy needs blood but I'd rather incinerate it!"

Yes, that is true. But I very much doubt 90% of it was getting chucked into the fire. That number is absurd. Maybe 90% at a single clinic in a tiny town, but in most of the States? There's no way they were chucking nearly all of it away.

I'm just saying whatever number buddy pulled out of his ass is irrelevant. Mass outpouring of donations + no need for additional blood = some blood destroyed because it goes bad before use.

Blood is used locally first. 9/11 victims might not have needed blood, but people in general did every day it was going on, and still do. Yes, some probably did get chucked from full banks, but a lot of blood did go to good use.

Maybe you're not understanding me. The guy who made the initial claim of "omg blood waste 90%" is not only not supported by the evidence, but even if he were right, it is irrelevant.